i agree SA contributors aren't always credible but the study is real. It's linked at the bottom of the article. As mentioned below it was published a month ago so it's surprising that AMRN Mgt wasn't prepared with this type of information going into Adcomm
Not seeing a bounce because the study came out last month and was highlighted on iHub and possibly this message board. I remember because I bookmarked it on my iphone.
Unfortunately, most of us assumed that JZ and staff were in tune with the latest research. I thought they would demonstrate expertise in responding to any questions at ADCOMM. Instead, they demonstrated less knowledge than many of the posters on iHub. They stood flat footed while the FDA and panel kicked them around.
The bottom line, this study could very well have quality design and prove without a doubt that EPA reduces CV events...BUT, it will get ignored if it's not sanctioned by BP, FDA and Wall Street.
Fda adcom members showed inherent bias towards japanese studies.
this bias has to be brought to attention of federal authorities.
If you are scientifically biased then you are deliberately withholding
treatment from people.
they include Helsinki studies but jelis is never mentioned in any meeting